Rushing to meet last week’s deadline for filing amicus briefs, dozens of local governments and other groups in California have jointly and separately beseeched the high court to uphold laws targeting sleeping in public. Such laws are seen as a key way to crack down homelessness.

The flood of legal filings came in support of an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court filed by the city of Boise, Idaho. The city opposes a September 2018 ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals that held that just as governments “may not criminalize the state of being ‘homeless in public places,’ [the city of Boise] may not criminalize conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless — namely sitting, lying or sleeping on the streets.”

In July, Boise hired attorneys Ted Olson and Theane Evangelis of the Los Angeles-based law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher for its appeal. The attorneys sought amicus briefs from affected local governments and stakeholders in the states bound by the 9th U.S. Circuit’s ruling: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

Lawyers for Boise say court overreached

Olson’s and Evangelis’ argued that the Boise ruling could create never-ending legal fighting by taking away a tool communities need to deal with homelessness, as well as create massive new fiscal obligations.

As CalWatchdog reported last week, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors backed joining an amicus brief prepared by the California State Association of Counties. Among the other government bodies that decided to back Boise:

• The city of Los Angeles. City Attorney Mike Feuer said last week that the ruling “could place the city at risk of litigation as leaders strive to fashion the humane, practical solutions this crisis urgently demands.” Mayor Eric Garcetti, an outspoken advocate of what he sees as a humane approach to homelessness, did not support Feuer’s decision.

• Riverside, Orange and Fresno Counties.

• The cities of Sacramento, Fullerton, Torrance and Newport Beach.

The decisions reflect a rift between high-profile politicians like Garcetti, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg who call for a compassion-first approach on homelessness and politicians who are responding to frustration and anger from their constituents over homeless encampments disrupting neighborhoods. Homelessness has gotten steadily worse in most California cities over the last dozen years, fueled initially by the Great Recession and then by the high cost of housing.

But the Boise ruling also is unpopular across the West. The Idaho Statesman reported that 20 amicus briefs supported by 81 different groups from a range of states had been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers doubt high court will take case

The newspaper noted that one was filed by MaryRose Courtney, whose brother is homeless and mentally ill, and the Ketchum-Downtown YMCA in Los Angeles. Unlike many of the briefs, it didn’t focus on the fiscal and quality-of-life headaches that could result from the Boise ruling. Instead, Courtney challenged the notion that tolerating sleeping in public was humane.

This approach is “leading to more aggressive policing, as police prohibited from enforcing anti-camping laws turn to arresting homeless people for more serious offenses like public urination, public defecation and public nudity,” she wrote. “Court rulings like the 9th Circuit’s in this case do far more harm than good because they lead to deregulation and generate apathy and inaction, as well as a sense of frustration that discourages further efforts to help the homeless.”

But plaintiffs’ lawyers from Idaho Legal Aid Services and the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty told the Statesman that they were skeptical the Supreme Court would take up the case because the ruling by the panel of 9th Circuit judges was based on earlier court rulings on homeless ordinances that had not been overturned. 

Plaintiffs have four weeks to prepare a response to the amicus briefs.

If the high court decides to take up the case, a hearing is expected in the spring with a ruling by the end of the court’s term in June, the Statesman reported.

Both cities cite the same reasons they are epicenters for homelessness: mild climates and extremely expensive housing. But knowing what’s driving the problem isn’t the same as having an answer for it.

In Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti and City Council leaders in 2015 declared a “state of emergency” over the homeless crisis and announced $100 million in funding for homelessness relief in 2015-16, a big increase over previous years. In 2016, city voters followed up by approving a $1.2 billion bond to ramp up plans to build housing for the homeless, and in fiscal 2016-17, homeless funding went up to $138 million.

But since the emergency declaration, the average number of those homeless on a given night according to city tracking has gone up by nearly two-thirds. In 2015, the average number was 21,338. In 2016, it was 28,464. In 2017, with half the year still to go, the number has grown by 18 percent to 34,189.

Not only are efforts to get more homeless into shelters failing, a Friday report in the Los Angeles Times concluded that a $14 million program to clean up homeless encampments was ineffective because as soon as one camp area was closed and cleaned, another popped up nearby.

City officials argued they were making progress in addressing an immense problem. Residents weren’t buying it.

“[Work crews] clean up and they come right back. It’s just a never-ending cycle,” a North Hills hair salon owner told the Times. “You’d think they would come and find a place for them, but they don’t. They just tell them to move.”

Heavy spending producing weak results

In San Francisco, residents – and elected officials – face even worse frustrations. The city spends far more than Los Angeles to deal with a smaller number of homeless people, without the gains one might expect.

In 2015, Mayor Ed Lee was re-elected to a second four-year term after a campaign in which he promised to tackle what was unanimously seen as a humanitarian and civic crisis. But eight months later, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a rare front-page editorial declaring city efforts to have failed.

The number of homeless people on an average night was estimated at about 7,500 in January 2015. By late 2016, city officials’ estimate had jumped to about 10,000, with some homeless advocates saying the number was closer to 12,000. Different counts have different methodologies, leading to disputes over whether the problem is significantly worse than it used to be. But the Chronicle’s front-page editorial came down squarely on the side of those who argue some official counts are much too low.

Meanwhile, as in Los Angeles, attempts to clear homeless encampments that San Francisco voters had blessed by approving a measure prohibiting tents on public sidewalks in November 2016 were depicted by news coverage as more symbolic than substantive. Mayor Lee agreed with the assessment.

City spending on homelessness has gone from $241 million in fiscal 2015-16 to $275 million in 2016-17 to $305 million in the fiscal year that began Saturday. In May, a local nonprofit group also promised to provide a $100 million grant to tackle homeless.

But this may not affect the problem except on the margins. Local governments have long noticed that a relative handful of homeless people – those with serious mental illness – consume a disproportionate share of homeless funding with constant trips to emergency rooms and confrontations with police and residents. In San Francisco, this category of homeless people makes up 3 percent of total homeless but uses one-third of resources. A June 2016 Chronicle story suggested the tab for this group alone could eat up far more than one-third of all funds if its severe problems were addressed with the comprehensive approach that advocates want.

That would leave little to go around for the most common category of homeless person – those who lost shelter after losing a job or after a rent increase or a life emergency such as heavy medical bills.